Martineau: A better city government

By Robert J. Martineau

Published: Friday, January 24, 2014 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 7:44 p.m.

The recent announcement that a group of city residents has begun a petition drive to put a completely revised city charter on the upcoming November general election ballot raises once again the question of the best form of government for Sarasota.

Currently, the city is governed by five elected commissioners and an appointed city manager to administer the city government. (Sarasota County has the same structure.) The proposed charter calls for dividing the city government along traditional lines, separating executive and legislative functions.

An elected mayor would head the executive part. He would have traditional executive powers of appointing and removing, with council approval, a deputy mayor and the other principal city officers to handle the day-to-day management of the city government. He would also prepare an annual budget for council approval and be able to veto ordinances.

A council of five members, each elected from a district, would be the city's legislative body. It's principal function would be to pass ordinances and resolutions, approve the appointment and removal of major city officials, adopt an annual budget, and audit city finances. It could also override a mayoral veto.

The principal arguments made for the new charter are: (1) the present system is fatally flawed in that its five commissioners cannot provide the leadership that a progressive city like Sarasota requires; and (2) the supposed distinction between policy set by the commissioners and administration performed by the manager is fanciful at best.

The defenders of the current system claim that: (1) it has served Sarasota well, especially under former longtime city manager Ken Thompson; (2) a majority of similar-sized cities have a similar system; and (3) elected mayors are often corrupt.

The opponents' arguments do not stand up to examination. A major defect in the current system is that the sole power of the elected commissioners over administration of the city government is to hire and fire the city manager. In the past decade Sarasota (and Sarasota County) has seen a steady turnover of city managers interspersed with acting managers, causing severe disruption in both the functioning of the city and developing and implementing its policies for the future as well as forcing the city to pay enormous severance packages.

The basic premise of the supporters of the commission-manager system is that there is a sharp divide between policy and administration, with the commissioners doing the former and the manager the latter. That is a false premise -- policy and administration are necessarily and completely intertwined. In any given situation, the extent to which the commissioners or the manager prevail depends on the will and skills of each.

An example of this conflict was the subject of a story in the Herald-Tribune on Martin Luther King Day. It recounted how Ken Thompson, the iconic city manager, made the decision to integrate Sarasota's libraries and its golf course. He obviously did the right thing both morally and legally, but he did it on his own without consulting the city commissioners. Good for him -- but bad for the idea that the city manager does not make policy.

The idea that Sarasota would be out of line with a majority of other similar sized cities if it elected a chief executive may be true, but irrelevant. In many states there are few city managers. In Florida the nearest cities -- Bradenton, St. Petersburg and Tampa -- as well as Orlando and Jacksonville have the same. Recently Pensacola made the shift. I have lived in many cities both large and small, most without city managers. The most dysfunctional government I saw was one with a city manager in Cincinnati.

The opponents also claim that an elected mayor would be a dictator. What nonsense. The proposed charter has the checks and balances common to all governments at the federal, state and local levels. The council must approve appointments, removals and the budget, creates and abolishes boards and commissions, and passes and can override a veto of an ordinance -- the traditional powers of a legislative body.

As to corruption, that is the exception, not the rule, and is the result of its own political culture.

I have written a number of guest columns pointing out weaknesses in the commissioner-manager form of government in both the city and county governments, particularly in political leadership. I have also been critical of the poor drafting of constitutional and legislative proposals, including the 2008 Sarasota initiative for an elected mayor. It was for this reason that I volunteered to draft the charter which is the subject of the initiative now being circulated (available at itstimesarasota.com). In my professional judgment, it will provide Sarasota with the type of government it both needs and deserves.

Robert J. Martineau of Nokomis is Distinguished Research Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Cincinnati. He is the co-author of "Plain English for Drafting Statutes and Rules" and taught state and local government for many years.

<p>The recent announcement that a group of city residents has begun a petition drive to put a completely revised city charter on the upcoming November general election ballot raises once again the question of the best form of government for Sarasota.</p><p>Currently, the city is governed by five elected commissioners and an appointed city manager to administer the city government. (Sarasota County has the same structure.) The proposed charter calls for dividing the city government along traditional lines, separating executive and legislative functions.</p><p>An elected mayor would head the executive part. He would have traditional executive powers of appointing and removing, with council approval, a deputy mayor and the other principal city officers to handle the day-to-day management of the city government. He would also prepare an annual budget for council approval and be able to veto ordinances.</p><p>A council of five members, each elected from a district, would be the city's legislative body. It's principal function would be to pass ordinances and resolutions, approve the appointment and removal of major city officials, adopt an annual budget, and audit city finances. It could also override a mayoral veto.</p><p>The principal arguments made for the new charter are: (1) the present system is fatally flawed in that its five commissioners cannot provide the leadership that a progressive city like Sarasota requires; and (2) the supposed distinction between policy set by the commissioners and administration performed by the manager is fanciful at best.</p><p>The defenders of the current system claim that: (1) it has served Sarasota well, especially under former longtime city manager Ken Thompson; (2) a majority of similar-sized cities have a similar system; and (3) elected mayors are often corrupt.</p><p>The opponents' arguments do not stand up to examination. A major defect in the current system is that the sole power of the elected commissioners over administration of the city government is to hire and fire the city manager. In the past decade Sarasota (and Sarasota County) has seen a steady turnover of city managers interspersed with acting managers, causing severe disruption in both the functioning of the city and developing and implementing its policies for the future as well as forcing the city to pay enormous severance packages.</p><p>The basic premise of the supporters of the commission-manager system is that there is a sharp divide between policy and administration, with the commissioners doing the former and the manager the latter. That is a false premise -- policy and administration are necessarily and completely intertwined. In any given situation, the extent to which the commissioners or the manager prevail depends on the will and skills of each.</p><p>An example of this conflict was the subject of a story in the Herald-Tribune on Martin Luther King Day. It recounted how Ken Thompson, the iconic city manager, made the decision to integrate Sarasota's libraries and its golf course. He obviously did the right thing both morally and legally, but he did it on his own without consulting the city commissioners. Good for him -- but bad for the idea that the city manager does not make policy.</p><p>The idea that Sarasota would be out of line with a majority of other similar sized cities if it elected a chief executive may be true, but irrelevant. In many states there are few city managers. In Florida the nearest cities -- Bradenton, St. Petersburg and Tampa -- as well as Orlando and Jacksonville have the same. Recently Pensacola made the shift. I have lived in many cities both large and small, most without city managers. The most dysfunctional government I saw was one with a city manager in Cincinnati.</p><p>The opponents also claim that an elected mayor would be a dictator. What nonsense. The proposed charter has the checks and balances common to all governments at the federal, state and local levels. The council must approve appointments, removals and the budget, creates and abolishes boards and commissions, and passes and can override a veto of an ordinance -- the traditional powers of a legislative body.</p><p>As to corruption, that is the exception, not the rule, and is the result of its own political culture.</p><p>I have written a number of guest columns pointing out weaknesses in the commissioner-manager form of government in both the city and county governments, particularly in political leadership. I have also been critical of the poor drafting of constitutional and legislative proposals, including the 2008 Sarasota initiative for an elected mayor. It was for this reason that I volunteered to draft the charter which is the subject of the initiative now being circulated (available at itstimesarasota.com). In my professional judgment, it will provide Sarasota with the type of government it both needs and deserves.</p><p>Robert J. Martineau of Nokomis is Distinguished Research Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Cincinnati. He is the co-author of "Plain English for Drafting Statutes and Rules" and taught state and local government for many years.</p>